First of all, I thank you for your letter of March 25, 2002 in
which you state the official position of Microsoft relative to Bill
Number 1609, Free Software in Public Administration, which is
indubitably inspired by the desire for Peru to find a suitable
place in the global technological context. In the same spirit, and
convinced that we will find the best solutions through an exchange
of clear and open ideas, I will take this opportunity to reply to
the commentaries included in your letter.

While acknowledging that opinions such as yours constitute a
significant contribution, it would have been even more worthwhile
for me if, rather than formulating objections of a general nature
(which we will analyse in detail later) you had gathered solid
arguments for the advantages that proprietary software could bring
to the Peruvian State, and to its citizens in general, since this
would have allowed a more enlightening exchange in respect of each
of our positions.

With the aim of creating an orderly debate, we will assume that
what you call "open source software" is what the Bill defines as
"free software", since there exists software for which the source
code is distributed together with the program, but which does not
fall within the definition established by the Bill; and that what
you call "commercial software" is what the Bill defines as
"proprietary" or "unfree", given that there exists free software
which is sold in the market for a price like any other good or
service.

It is also necessary to make it clear that the aim of the Bill
we are discussing is not directly related to the amount of direct
savings that can by made by using free software in state
institutions. That is in any case a marginal aggregate value, but
in no way is it the chief focus of the Bill. The basic principles
which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees of a
state of law, such as:

Free access to public information by the citizen.
Permanence of public data.
Security of the State and citizens.

To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information,
it is indespensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a
single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a
guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of
compatible free software.

To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that
the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on
the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions
imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the
development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of
the source code.

To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it
is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements
which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission
of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely
accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by
the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of
independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings
further security, since the knowledge of the source code will
eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*.

In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of the
citizens, both in their role as legitimate owners of information
managed by the state, and in their role as consumers. In this
second case, by allowing the growth of a widespread availability of
free software not containing *spy code* able to put at risk privacy
and individual freedoms.

In this sense, the Bill is limited to establishing the
conditions under which the state bodies will obtain software in the
future, that is, in a way compatible with these basic
principles.

From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:
-the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software
-the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software
-the law does not specifiy which concrete software to use
-the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be
bought
-the law does not limit the terms under which a software product
can be licensed.

What the Bill does express clearly, is that, for software to be
acceptable for the state it is not enough that it is technically
capable of fulfilling a task, but that further the contractual
conditions must satisfy a series of requirements reguarding the
license, without which the State cannot guarantee the citizen
adequate processing of his data, watching over its integrity,
confidentiality, and accessibility throughout time, as these are
very critical aspects for its normal functioning.

We agree, Mr. Gonzalez, that information and communication
technology have a significant impact on the quality of life of the
citizens (whether it be positive or negative). We surely also agree
that the basic values I have pointed out above are fundamental in a
democratic state like Peru. So we are very interested to know of
any other way of guaranteeing these principles, other than through
the use of free software in the terms defined by the Bill.

As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to
analyse them in detail:

Firstly, you point out that: "1. The bill makes it compulsory
for all public bodies to use only free software, that is to say
open source software, which breaches the principles of equality
before the law, that of non-discrimination and the right of free
private enterprise, freedom of industry and of contract, protected
by the constitution."

This understanding is in error. The Bill in no way affects the
rights you list; it limites itself entirely to establishing
conditions for the use of software on the part of state
institutions, without in any way meddling in private sector
transactions. It is a well established principle that the State
does not enjoy the wide spectrum of contractual freedom of the
private sector, as it is limited in its actions precisely by the
requirement for transparency of public acts; and in this sense, the
preservation of the greater common interest must prevail when
legislating on the matter.

The Bill protects equality under the law, since no natural or
legal person is excluded from the right of offering these goods to
the State under the conditions defined in the Bill and without more
limitations than those established by the Law of State Contracts
and Purchasing (T.U.O. por Decreto Supremo No. 012-2001-PCM).

The Bill does not introduce any discrimination whatever, since
it only establishes *how* the goods have to be provided (which is a
state power) and not *who* has to provide them (which would
effectively be discriminatory, if restrictions based on national
origin, race religion, ideology, sexual preference etc. were
imposed). On the contrary, the Bill is decidedly
antidiscriminatory. This is so because by defining with no room for
doubt the conditions for the provision of software, it prevents
state bodies from using software which has a license including
discriminatory conditions.

It should be obvious from the preceding two paragraphs that the
Bill does not harm free private enterprise, since the latter can
always choose under what conditions it will produce software; some
of these will be acceptable to the State, and others will not be
since they contradict the guarantee of the basic principles listed
above. This free initiative is of course compatible with the
freedom of industry and freedom of contract (in the limited form in
which the State can exercise the latter). Any private subject can
produce software under the conditions which the State requires, or
can refrain from doing so. Nobody is forced to adopt a model of
production, but if they wish to provide software to the State, they
must provide the mechanisms which guarantee the basic principles,
and which are those described in the Bill.

By way of an example: nothing in the text of the Bill would
prevent your company offering the State bodies an office "suite",
under the conditions defined in the Bill and setting the price that
you consider satisfactory. If you did not, it would not be due to
restrictions imposed by the law, but to business decisions relative
to the method of commercializing your products, decisions with
which the State is not involved.

To continue; you note that:" 2. The bill, by making the use of
open source software compulsory, would establish discriminatory and
non competitive practices in the contracting and purchasing by
public bodies..."

This statement is just a reiteration of the previous one, and so
the response can be found above. However, let us concern ourselves
for a moment with your comment regarding "non-competitive ...
practices."

Of course, in defining any kind of purchase, the buyer sets
conditions which relate to the proposed use of the good or service.
From the start, this excludes certain manufacturers from the
possibility of competing, but does not exclude them "a priori", but
rather based on a series of principles determined by the autonomous
will of the purchaser, and so the process takes place in
conformance with the law. And in the Bill it is established that
*no-one* is excluded from competing as far as he guarantees the
fullfilment of the basic principles.

Furthermore, the Bill *stimulates* competition, since it tends
to generate a supply of software with better conditions of
usability, and to better existing work, in a model of continuous
improvement.

On the other hand, the central aspect of competivity is the
chance to provide better choices to the consumer. Now, it is
impossible to ignore the fact that marketing does not play a
neutral role when the product is offered on the market (since
accepting the opposite would lead one to suppose that firms'
expenses in marketing lack any sense), and that therefore a
significant expense under this heading can influence the decisions
of the purchaser. This influence of marketing is in large measure
reduced by the bill that we are backing, since the choice within
the framework proposed is based on the *technical merits* of the
product and not on the effort put into commercialization by the
producer; in this sense, competitvity is increased, since the
smallest software producer can compete on equal terms with the most
powerful corporations.

It is necessary to stress that there is no position more
anti-competitive than that of the big software producers, which
frequently abuse their dominant position, since in innumerable
cases they propose as a solution to problems raised by users:
"update your software to the new version" (at the user's expense,
naturally); furthermore, it is common to find arbitrary cessation
of technical help for products, which, in the provider's judgement
alone, are "old"; and so, to receive any kind of technical
assistance, the user finds himself forced to migrate to new
versions (with non-trivial costs, especially as changes in hardware
platform are often involved). And as the whole infrastructure is
based on proprietary data formats, the user stays "trapped" in the
need to continue using products from the same supplier, or to make
the huge effort to change to another environment (probably also
proprietary).

You add: "3. So, by compelling the State to favour a business
model based entirely on open source, the bill would only discourage
the local and international manufacturing companies, which are the
ones which really undertake important expenditures, create a
significant number of direct and indirect jobs, as well as
contributing to the GNP, as opposed to a model of open source
software which tends to have an ever weaker economic impact, since
it mainly creates jobs in the service sector."

I do not agree with your statement. Partly because of what you
yourself point out in paragraph 6 of your letter, regarding the
relative weight of services in the context of software use. This
contradiction alone would invalidate your position. The service
model, adopted by a large number of companies in the software
industry, is much larger in economic terms, and with a tendency to
increase, than the licensing of programs.

On the other hand, the private sector of the economy has the
widest possible freedom to choose the economic model which best
suits its interests, even if this freedom of choice is often
obscured subliminally by the disproportionate expenditure on
marketing by the producers of proprietary software.

In addition, a reading of your opinion would lead to the
conclusion that the State market is crucial and essential for the
proprietary software industry, to such a point that the choice made
by the State in this bill would completely eliminate the market for
these firms. If that is true, we can deduce that the State must be
subsidising the proprietary software industry. In the unlikely
event that this were true, the State would have the right to apply
the subsidies in the area it considered of greatest social value;
it is undeniable, in this improbable hypothesis, that if the State
decided to subsidize software, it would have to do so choosing the
free over the proprietary, considering its social effect and the
rational use of taxpayers money.

In respect of the jobs generated by proprietary software in
countries like ours, these mainly concern technical tasks of little
aggregate value; at the local level, the technicians who provide
support for proprietary software produced by transnational
companies do not have the possibility of fixing bugs, not
necessarily for lack of technical capability or of talent, but
because they do not have access to the source code to fix it. With
free software one creates more technically qualified employment and
a framework of free competence where success is only tied to the
ability to offer good technical support and quality of service, one
stimulates the market, and one increases the shared fund of
knowledge, opening up alternatives to generate services of greater
total value and a higher quality level, to the benefit of all
involved: producers, service organizations, and consumers.

It is a common phenomenon in developing countries that local
software industries obtain the majority of their takings in the
service sector, or in the creation of "ad hoc" software. Therefore,
any negative impact that the application of the Bill might have in
this sector will be more than compensated by a growth in demand for
services (as long as these are carried out to high quality
standards). If the transnational software companies decide not to
compete under these new rules of the game, it is likely that they
will undergo some decrease in takings in terms of payment for
licences; however, considering that these firms continue to allege
that much of the software used by the State has been illegally
copied, one can see that the impact will not be very serious.
Certainly, in any case their fortune will be determined by market
laws, changes in which cannot be avoided; many firms traditionally
associated with proprietary software have already set out on the
road (supported by copious expense) of providing services
associated with free software, which shows that the models are not
mutually exclusive.

With this bill the State is deciding that it needs to preserve
certain fundamental values. And it is deciding this based on its
sovereign power, without affecting any of the constitutional
guarantees. If these values could be guaranteed without having to
choose a particular economic model, the effects of the law would be
even more beneficial. In any case, it should be clear that the
State does not choose an economic model; if it happens that there
only exists one economic model capable of providing software which
provides the basic guarantee of these principles, this is because
of historical circumstances, not because of an arbitrary choice of
a given model.

Your letter continues: "4. The bill imposes the use of open
source software without considering the dangers that this can bring
from the point of view of security, guarantee, and possible
violation of the intellectual property rights of third
parties."

Alluding in an abstract way to "the dangers this can bring",
without specifically mentioning a single one of these supposed
dangers, shows at the least some lack of knowledge of the topic.
So, allow me to enlighten you on these points.

On security:

National security has already been mentioned in general terms in
the initial discussion of the basic principles of the bill. In more
specific terms, relative to the security of the software itself, it
is well known that all software (whether proprietary or free)
contains errors or "bugs" (in programmers' slang). But it is also
well-known that the bugs in free software are fewer, and are fixed
much more quickly, than in proprietary software. It is not in vain
that numerous public bodies reponsible for the IT security of state
systems in developed countries require the use of free software for
the same conditions of security and efficiency.

What is impossible to prove is that proprietary software is more
secure than free, without the public and open inspection of the
scientific community and users in general. This demonstration is
impossible because the model of proprietary software itself
prevents this analysis, so that any guarantee of security is based
only on promises of good intentions (biased, by any reckoning) made
by the producer itself, or its contractors.

It should be remembered that in many cases, the licensing
conditions include Non-Disclosure clauses which prevent the user
from publicly revealing security flaws found in the licensed
proprietary product.

In respect of the guarantee:

As you know perfectly well, or could find out by reading the
"End User License Agreement" of the products you license, in the
great majority of cases the guarantees are limited to replacement
of the storage medium in case of defects, but in no case is
compensation given for direct or indirect damages, loss of profits,
etc... If as a result of a security bug in one of your products,
not fixed in time by yourselves, an attacker managed to compromise
crucial State systems, what guarantees, reparations and
compensation would your company make in accordance with your
licencing conditions? The guarantees of proprietary software,
inasmuch as programs are delivered ``AS IS'', that is, in the state
in which they are, with no additional responsibility of the
provider in respect of function, in no way differ from those normal
with free software.

On Intellectual Property:

Questions of intellectual property fall outside the scope of
this bill, since they are covered by specific other laws. The model
of free software in no way implies ignorance of these laws, and in
fact the great majority of free software is covered by copyright.
In reality, the inclusion of this question in your observations
shows your confusion in respect of the legal framework in which
free software is developed. The inclusion of the intellectual
property of others in works claimed as one's own is not a practice
that has been noted in the free software community; whereas,
unfortunately, it has been in the area of proprietry software. As
an example, the condemnation by the Commercial Court of Nanterre,
France, on 27th September 2001 of Microsoft Corp. to a penalty of 3
million francs in damages and interest, for violation of
intellectual property (piracy, to use the unfortunate term that
your firm commonly uses in its publicity).

You go on to say that: "The bill uses the concept of open source
software incorrectly, since it does not necessarily imply that the
software is free or of zero cost, and so arrives at mistaken
conclusions regarding State savings, with no cost-benefit analysis
to validate its position."

This observation is wrong; in principle, freedom and lack of
cost are orthogonal concepts: there is software which is
proprietary and charged for (for example, MS Office), software
which is proprietary and free of charge (MS Internet Explorer),
software which is free and charged for (RedHat, SuSE etc Gnu/Linux
distributions), software which is free and not charged for (Apache,
OpenOffice, Mozilla), and even software which can be licensed in a
range of combinations (MySQL).

Certainly free software is not necessarily free of charge. And
the text of the bill does not state that it has to be so, as you
will have noted after reading it. The definitions included in the
Bill state clearly *what* should be considered free software, at no
point referring to freedom from charges. Although the possibility
of savings in payments for proprietary software licenses are
mentioned, the foundations of the bill clearly refer to the
fundamental guarantees to be preserved and to the stimulus to local
technological development. Given that a democratic State must
support these principles, it has no other choice than to use
software with publicly available source code, and to exchange
information only in standard formats.

If the State does not use software with these characteristics,
it will be weakening basic republican principles. Luckily, free
software also implies lower total costs; however, even given the
hypothesis (easily disproved) that it was more expensive than
proprietary software, the simple existence of an effective free
software tool for a particular IT function would oblige the State
to use it; not by command of this Bill, but because of the basic
principles we enumerated at the start, and which arise from the
very essence of the lawful democratic State.

You continue: "6. It is wrong to think that Open Source Software
is free of charge. Research by the Gartner Group (an important
investigator of the technological market recognized at world level)
has shown that the cost of purchase of software (operating system
and applications) is only 8% of the total cost which firms and
institutions take on for a rational and truely beneficial use of
the technology. The other 92% consists of: installation costs,
enabling, support, maintenance, administration, and down-time."

This argument repeats that already given in paragraph 5 and
partly contradicts paragraph 3. For the sake of brevity we refer to
the comments on those paragraphs. However, allow me to point out
that your conclusion is logically false: even if according to
Gartner Group the cost of software is on average only 8% of the
total cost of use, this does not in any way deny the existence of
software which is free of charge, that is, with a licensing cost of
zero.

In addition, in this paragraph you correctly point out that the
service components and losses due to down-time make up the largest
part of the total cost of software use, which, as you will note,
contradicts your statement regarding the small value of services
suggested in paragraph 3. Now the use of free software contributes
significantly to reduce the remaining life-cycle costs. This
reduction in the costs of installation, support etc. can be noted
in several areas: in the first place, the competitive service model
of free software, support and maintenance for which can be freely
contracted out to a range of suppliers competing on the grounds of
quality and low cost. This is true for installation, enabling, and
support, and in large part for maintenance. In the second place,
due to the reproductive characteristics of the model, maintenance
carried out for an application is easily replicable, without
incurring large costs (that is, without paying more than once for
the same thing) since modifications, if one wishes, can be
incorporated in the common fund of knowledge. Thirdly, the huge
costs caused by non-functioning software ("blue screens of death",
malicious code such as virus, worms, and trojans, exceptions,
general protection faults and other well-known problems) are
reduced considerably by using more stable software; and it is
well-known that one of the most notable virtues of free software is
its stability.

You further state that: "7. One of the arguments behind the bill
is the supposed freedom from costs of open-source software,
compared with the costs of commercial software, without taking into
account the fact that there exist types of volume licensing which
can be highly advantageous for the State, as has happened in other
countries."

I have already pointed out that what is in question is not the
cost of the software but the principles of freedom of information,
accessibility, and security. These arguments have been covered
extensively in the preceding paragraphs to which I would refer
you.

On the other hand, there certainly exist types of volume
licensing (although unfortunately proprietary software does not
satisfy the basic principles). But as you correctly pointed out in
the immediately precding paragraph of your letter, they only manage
to reduce the impact of a component which makes up no more than 8%
of the total.

You continue: "8. In addition, the alternative adopted by the
bill (i) is clearly more expensive, due to the high costs of
software migration, and (ii) puts at risk compatibility and
interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between
the State and the private sector, given the hundreds of versions of
open source software on the market."

Let us analyze your statement in two parts. Your first argument,
that migration implies high costs, is in reality an argument in
favour of the Bill. Because the more time goes by, the more
difficult migration to another technology will become; and at the
same time, the security risks associated with proprietary software
will continue to increase. In this way, the use of proprietary
systems and formats will make the State ever more dependent on
specific suppliers. Once a policy of using free software has been
established (which certainly, does imply some cost) then on the
contrary migration from one system to another becomes very simple,
since all data is stored in open formats. On the other hand,
migration to an open software context implies no more costs than
migration between two different proprietary software contexts,
which invalidates your argument completely.

The second argument refers to "problems in interoperability of
the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the
private sector" This statement implies a certain lack of knowledge
of the way in which free software is built, which does not maximize
the dependence of the user on a particular platform, as normally
happens in the realm of proprietary software. Even when there are
multiple free software distributions, and numerous programs which
can be used for the same function, interoperability is guaranteed
as much by the use of standard formats, as required by the bill, as
by the possibility of creating interoperable software given the
availability of the source code.

You then say that: "9. The majority of open source code does not
offer adequate levels of service nor the guarantee from recognized
manufacturers of high productivity on the part of the users, which
has led various public organizations to retract their decision to
go with an open source software solution and to use commercial
software in its place."

This observation is without foundation. In respect of the
guarantee, your argument was rebutted in the response to paragraph
4. In respect of support services, it is possible to use free
software without them (just as also happens with proprietary
software), but anyone who does need them can obtain support
separately, whether from local firms or from international
corporations, again just as in the case of proprietary
software.

On the other hand, it would contribute greatly to our analysis
if you could inform us about free software projects *established*
in public bodies which have already been abandoned in favour of
proprietary software. We know of a good number of cases where the
opposite has taken place, but not know of any where what you
describe has taken place.

You continue by observing that: "10. The bill demotivates the
creativity of the peruvian software industry, which invoices 40
million US$/year, exports 4 million US$ (10th in ranking among
non-traditional exports, more than handicrafts) and is a source of
highly qualified employment. With a law that incentivates the use
of open source, software programmers lose their intellectual
property rights and their main source of payment."

It is clear enough that nobody is forced to commercialize their
code as free software. The only thing to take into account is that
if it is not free software, it cannot be sold to the public sector.
This is not in any case the main market for the national software
industry. We covered some questions referring to the influence of
the Bill on the generation of employment which would be both highly
technically qualified and in better conditions for competition
above, so it seems unnecessary to insist on this point.

What follows in your statement is incorrect. On the one hand, no
author of free software loses his intellectual property rights,
unless he expressly wishes to place his work in the public domain.
The free software movement has always been very respectful of
intellectual property, and has generated widespread public
recognition of authors. Names like those of Richard Stallman, Linus
Torvalds, Guido van Rossum, Larry Wall, Miguel de Icaza, Andrew
Tridgell, Theo de Raadt, Andrea Arcangeli, Bruce Perens, Darren
Reed, Alan Cox, Eric Raymond, and many others, are recognized
world-wide for their contributions to the development of software
that is used today by millions of people throughout the world. On
the other hand, to say that the rewards for authors rights make up
the main source of payment of Peruvian programmers is in any case a
guess, in particular since there is no proof to this effect, nor a
demonstration of how the use of free software by the State would
influence these payments.

You go on to say that: "11. Open source software, since it can
be distributed without charge, does not allow the generation of
income for its developers through exports. In this way, the
multiplier effect of the sale of software to other countries is
weakened, and so in turn is the growth of the industry, while
Government rules ought on the contrary to stimulate local
industry."

This statement shows once again complete ignorance of the
mechanisms of and market for free software. It tries to claim that
the market of sale of non- exclusive rights for use (sale of
licences) is the only possible one for the software industry, when
you yourself pointed out several paragraphs above that it is not
even the most important one. The incentives that the bill offers
for the growth of a supply of better qualified professionals,
together with the increase in experience that working on a large
scale with free software within the State will bring for Peruvian
technicians, will place them in a highly competitive position to
offer their services abroad.

You then state that: "12. In the Forum, the use of open source
software in education was discussed, without mentioning the
complete collapse of this initiative in a country like Mexico,
where precisely the State employees who founded the project now
state that open source software did not make it possible to offer a
learning experience to pupils in the schools, did not take into
account the capability at a national level to give adequate support
to the platform, and that the software did not and does not allow
for the levels of platform integration that now exist in
schools."

In fact Mexico has gone into reverse with the Red Escolar
(Schools Network) project. This is due precisely to the fact that
the driving forces behind the mexican project used license costs as
their main argument, instead of the other reasons specified in our
project, which are far more essential. Because of this conceptual
mistake, and as a result of the lack of effective support from the
SEP (Secretary of State for Public Education), the assumption was
made that to implant free software in schools it would be enough to
drop their software budget and send them a CD ROM with Gnu/Linux
instead. Of course this failed, and it couldn't have been
otherwise, just as school laboratories fail when they use
proprietary software and have no budget for implementation and
maintenance. That's exactly why our bill is not limited to making
the use of free software mandatory, but recognizes the need to
create a viable migration plan, in which the State undertakes the
technical transition in an orderly way in order to then enjoy the
advantages of free software.

You end with a rhetorical question: "13. If open source software
satisfies all the requirements of State bodies, why do you need a
law to adopt it? Shouldn't it be the market which decides freely
which products give most benefits or value?"

We agree that in the private sector of the economy, it must be
the market that decides which products to use, and no state
interference is permissible there. However, in the case of the
public sector, the reasoning is not the same: as we have already
established, the state archives, handles, and transmits information
which does not belong to it, but which is entrusted to it by
citizens, who have no alternative under the rule of law. As a
counterpart to this legal requirement, the State must take extreme
measures to safeguard the integrity, confidentiality, and
accessibility of this information. The use of proprietary software
raises serious doubts as to whehter these requirements can be
fulfilled, lacks conclusive evidence in this respect, and so is not
suitable for use in the public sector.

The need for a law is based, firstly, on the realization of the
fundamental principles listed above in the specific area of
software; secondly, on the fact that the State is not an ideal
homogoneous entity, but made up of multiple bodies with varying
degrees of autonomy in decision making. Given that it is
inappropriate to use proprietary software, the fact of establishing
these rules in law will prevent the personal discretion of any
state employee from putting at risk the information which belongs
to citizens. And above all, because it constitutes an up-to-date
reaffirmation in relation to the means of management and
communication of information used today, it is based on the
republican principle of openness to the public.

In conformance with this universally accepted principle, the
citizen has the right to know all information held by the State and
not covered by well- founded declarations of secrecy based on law.
Now, software deals with information and is itself information.
Information in a special form, capable of being interpreted by a
machine in order to execute actions, but crucial information all
the same because the citizen has a legitimate right to know, for
example, how his vote is computed or his taxes calculated. And for
that he must have free access to the source code and be able to
prove to his satisfaction the programs used for electoral
computations or calculation of his taxes.

I wish you the greatest respect, and would like to repeat that
my office will always be open for you to expound your point of view
to whatever level of detail you consider suitable.

Cordially,
DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÃ'EZ
Congressman of the Republica of PerÃº.